Leo does not understand instincts

[Enigma777]

So I am watching the video “is gender a social construct” and even though I agree with @Leo Gura on most of what he says, the blurring of the line between masculine and feminine is a mistake. Of course, there is no definite line and it’s a spectrum, but, masculinity and femininity are fundamental aspects of nature. 

Now one argument he gave is that, before animals and humans existed, there was no male or female. This is only partially true. The truth is that the principles from which masculinity and femininity emanate from have always existed. The metaphysical principles of expansion and contraction, or the active and passive principles(Yin/Yang) have ALWAYS existed. Of course from the ultimate perspective these dualities are just conveniences that God used to manifest itself into form and to interact with itself and from the absolute perspective no such distinctions exist, but to claim that here, there is nothing fundamental about masculinity and femininity and that these things are nothing but mental constructs is, again, a mistake.

There are objective ways into which the female genome and male genome manifest themselves through our behaviour. Even though reality is nuanced and there are masculine woman and feminine men, they are a minority. And even then, notice that an individual either leans more to what we identify as “masculine” or “feminine” or a mix of those but never to some other unknown pattern of behavior. What does that tell us? That these are the primary forces of nature forming this plane of reality that we exist on. Feminine creatures are more passive, nurturing, emotional/intuitive, receptive(Vagina, *being* penetrated) etc. Masculine creatures are more active, grounded, aggressive/forward going, penetrative(Penis, *Doing* the penetration).

So a mistake Leo is making is to say that all of these patterns of behavior are subjectively and arbitrarily ascribed to stereotypical and imaginary constructions that we call “Men” and “Woman” for the purpose of survival. There is an aspect of it BUT this is not all there is to it!!!! He seems to forget that DIRECT EXPERIENCE IS KING. There is a difference between the mind/intellect and the instincts(here I am not talking about the big Mind but the rational aspect of the human condition). The instincts are something fundamental that are not created(created by God yes, not socially created) but DIRECTLY felt and experienced regardless of conceptual projections or not. Woman or feminine creatures seek the masculine for (emotional not necessarily financial) stability, security and having a strong pillar acting as a contrast to their chaotic natures. They want a powerful figure of authority and discipline(without him being a tyrant as nobody likes being oppressed which is pathological masculinity). That’s why most woman want to be “taken” and often fantasize about dangerous, tough men and want their man to be taller and stronger than them. Notice that a woman doesn’t want a more emotional men, because according to the law of polarity, there is no magnetic or energetic pull and thus no *attraction*. 

In the same way men, or masculine individuals, want soft, sweet, nurturing, happy, smiling partners who can calm their incessant desire for conquest, their fire of masculine intensity burning within them. They do not want a strong, independent, tough, dangerous, big partner, for the same reason that feminine individuals do not want feminine partners, because attractions works through opposites and masculinity and femininity happen to be FUNDAMENTAL opposites(that complement each other) of nature. 

Now of course the healthier solution in both cases is for the feminine to integrate the masculine aspects of her psyche(Animus in Jungian philosophy) and be in a state of cohesion, alignement and balance and for the masculine to integrate the joyful, present, happy and nurturing aspects(Anima) of its consciousness. As Leo once said, the goal is to become both men and woman or balancing both of these energies within ourselves and this is very true. 

So my point is that these things are not merely social constructs. The fact that a young man wants to drive fast on the highway is not a cultural construct based on an arbitrary projection of expected behaviour, but something that is deep in our nature, fundamentally. In fact, the expectation that men should engage in such behaviors, emerged from our implicit subconscious understanding of our fundamental nature.   Our sexual fantasies are also not constructs as they are FELT and directly experienced. There are very definite ways into which the feminine genome strives to survive(being as attractive, sweet and nurturing as possible as to seduce the most powerful and dangerous male of the tribe) and ways into which the masculine genome tries to survive(being as confident, secure, dominant as possible so as to crush opposing masculine competition and gain the best female for reproduction). THIS IS NOT GOING AWAY!!!! Recent waves of feminism and other such modern movements trying to claim that there is absolutely no such things as femininity and masculinity are a tremendous danger to the survival and thriving of the human genome. No matter what kinds of ideas you hold, it doesn’t matter, instincts are there whether you are conscious of them or not.

Also my final point would be that, I find @Leo Gura to be disingenuous in his claims simply because he himself is undeniably still run by his hormones and instincts, and no matter what he says about identity(which he is mostly right about from a matter of absolute perspective) he still is run by the most primal aspects of his carnal being. He doesn’t want to be fucked by some woman with a strap on or be taken charge of. He most likely wants to be in control in the bed and take initiative and he doesn’t relate to men the same way he does woman. He wants to fuck woman and has a different kind of relationship with them as he does with men. He also probably doesn’t want to put on a nice dress, make himself all pretty and be picked up by his date who’s gonna open the doors for him and pay dinner, an idea which most likely repels him or at the very least, is simply totally unrealistic to him. It’s not true that masculine or feminine roles are constructed and don’t matter, it’s very real and it’s F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L. So no matter what he says, the activity of the masculine energy is there in him also which deconstructs any claim that masculinity and femininity are constructs. You can’t think your way through relating in such a fundamental way, what you directly experience and feel is what is real, and the feeling is either masculine or feminine. This stuff is deep within the core of your soul, whether you carry a more masculine energy or a more feminine energy.  

Edited June 29, 2023 by Enigma777

[Enigma777]

Also this is not coming from some alpha red pill ideologue Andrew Tate type of “Man”. This is coming from someone who embraces more than most the feminine aspects of his psyche like unconditional love, presence, fun etc. In fact I’ve realized you can’t be a true man without that. Integrating the feminine aspects of your psyche even strengthens your masculinity. So this is not some ideological rant of some butt hurt wanna be macho man, I am just expressing my metaphysical knowledge and my concerns of letting behind the divine(integrated, healthy) masculine and the divine feminine and that doing so is a mistake of tremendously dangerous implications. Woman need strong men and men need nurturing woman, there is no going around that and any philosophy trying to deny this simple fact will just contribute to make EVERYBODY more miserable. 
 

If you are a serious intellectual, these videos might help you:

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Enigma777

[Sucuk Ekmek]

I think sex isn't a fundemental aspect of nature, nature doesn't give a crap if her single flower has two sexes on it.

From my experience nature rather strive for biodiversity. 

I am not sure if nature aware of sexes.

But I do enjoy masculine and feminine concepts. It works ! 

[Enigma777]

1 hour ago, Sucuk Ekmek said:

I think sex isn't a fundemental aspect of nature, nature doesn't give a crap if her single flower has two sexes on it.

From my experience nature rather strive for biodiversity. 

I am not sure if nature aware of sexes.

But I do enjoy masculine and feminine concepts. It works ! 

No you didn’t properly read what I said. Masculinity and femininity are concepts true, but what is not a concept is what they are POINTING TO. These are not arbitrary constructs, they are constructs as long as they remain in the realm of mind and words. But look at what they are pointing to within yourself.

Dont think. Feel. What is your body telling you? What kind of porn do you watch? What kind of sexual fantasies do you have? What do you truly want? If you listen closely and pay attention to your psyche and the message it sends, the answer will be clear and you’ll understand what I mean.

Unless you are asexual or something you are like most souls and are under the law of gender. “Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; Gender manifests on all planes”. What is masculinity? What is femininity? The answers are not found in the rational mind. They are found in the imagination(intuitive aspect of the mind) through fantasies and in our penises and vaginas. FEEL what being a man/woman is. This is fundamental in actual nature, this is God given. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Enigma777

[Sucuk Ekmek]

8 hours ago, Enigma777 said:

No you didn’t properly read what I said. Masculinity and femininity are concepts true, but what is not a concept is what they are POINTING TO. These are not arbitrary constructs, they are constructs as long as they remain in the realm of mind and words. But look at what they are pointing to within yourself.

Dont think. Feel. What is your body telling you? What kind of porn do you watch? What kind of sexual fantasies do you have? What do you truly want? If you listen closely and pay attention to your psyche and the message it sends, the answer will be clear and you’ll understand what I mean.

Unless you are asexual or something you are like most souls and are under the law of gender. “Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; Gender manifests on all planes”. What is masculinity? What is femininity? The answers are not found in the rational mind. They are found in the imagination(intuitive aspect of the mind) through fantasies and in our penises and vaginas. FEEL what being a man/woman is. This is fundamental in actual nature, this is God given. 

I feel you, these ideas do sound good and important, but end of the day, I am bullshitting myself. I just cannot trust my sensations. I do enjoy being a male, it's even better when you are young, but as you get older things will be different . We are the only species on earth that can notice and gaze at the sunset. This is what we do. 

 

[Reciprocality]

Sex is both a social construct, your own construct and a biological reality.

These things do not exclude one another at all, sex is expressed in various ways in different domains, no two people agree what sex is, and no two people would ever be able to abstract out of an identical dataset what objective reality the idea of sex corresponds to, since no two people have lived the same life, and the objective reality of sex can not stem from a personal dataset of subjectively determined characteristics.

For this reason, it would be wise to actually think about these things in terms of variables, instead of already given myths, and ask questions regarding what kind of new myths would be useful to understand these variables.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Reciprocality

[DocWatts]

It's worth noting that the observation that something is a mental construct (such as gender) does not mean that it's imaginary (ie not 'real').

I see people make this mistake all of the time.

If we think about what a mental construct, such as gender, actually is, it's a category or boundary that's created and sustained by our minds, which is coupled to some observation about ourselves or the world.

As such, the nature of all constructs is that they are necessarily partial (since they arise from the limitations inherent to a particular perspective), and are a consequence of our interactions with Reality; which makes them 'real' (though not necessarily healthy or functional).

Edited July 2, 2023 by DocWatts

[Vibroverse]

4 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

It's worth noting that the observation that something is a mental construct (such as gender) does not mean that it's imaginary (ie not 'real').

I see people make this mistake all of the time.

If we think about what a mental construct, such as gender, actually is, it's a category or boundary that's created and sustained by our minds, which is coupled to some observation about ourselves or the world.

As such, the nature of all constructs is that they are necessarily partial (since they arise from the limitations inherent to a particular perspective), and are a consequence of our interactions with Reality; which makes them 'real' (though not necessarily healthy or functional).

Yeah, if we look at it from a deeper level, i think both biological facts and sociological facts are constructs of the mind, but it is that reality is constructed by emergent levels of thought where, we might say, biological facts are more grounded than sociological facts. 

We see that different sexes as biological entities are relatively more universal than different genders as sociological entities, that are more particular forms of the underlying idea. There, i think, we can talk about the different intentionalities of consciousness if we would think of it as a teleological process. 

The mind holds those ideas together within itself as different modes, or different levels, of being where mind recognizes itself, as a result of being an other in relation to self that others itself within itself. And through this neverending otherness, the self explores itself as the difference that builds itself as the process. 

Mind, through the construct that we call thought, finds itself in the process of analyzing and deconstructing itself, and thought becomes the means, by being the self intuition, thought which mind knows itself in the form of being other than itself. And then thought becomes the process of intuiting itself where that self intuition becomes the ground "onto" which what we might call thinkingness builds itself. 

Being and thought, in the process of knowing itself as that which is the self knowledge of itself, becomes the understanding of meaning, and meaning, as a self expressing expression, discovers itself as language that becomes its own domain that is expanding "within" itself. 

 

[Sugarcoat]

If femininity and masculinity are so ~fundamental ~ ,   ~inherent~ and ~real~ beyond mental constructs why would there be fear and defensiveness about society moving away from it? If it is like you describe, which I agree on in a way, I don’t see the reason to have any fear that it will be disrupted? 

[DocWatts]

On 7/2/2023 at 4:43 PM, Vibroverse said:

Yeah, if we look at it from a deeper level, i think both biological facts and sociological facts are constructs of the mind, but it is that reality is constructed by emergent levels of thought where, we might say, biological facts are more grounded than sociological facts. 

I've found Wilber's holonic approach to be quite helpful for contextualizing this. In that the sociosphere is contingent on the biosphere, but the reverse is not true. By this measure we could say that biological facts are more fundamental than sociological facts, while sociology is more significant because it includes a greater depth of holons than the biosphere.

Likewise gender is contingent upon biological sex, but the reverse is not true. At the same time, gender can said to be more significant for the lived experience of human beings than biological sex.

Edited July 4, 2023 by DocWatts

[Vibroverse]

5 hours ago, DocWatts said:

I've found Wilber's holonic approach to be quite helpful for contextualizing this. In that the sociosphere is contingent on the biosphere, but the reverse is not true. By this measure we could say that biological facts are more fundamental than sociological facts, while sociology is more significant because it includes a greater depth of holons than the biosphere.

Likewise gender is contingent upon biological sex, but the reverse is not true. At the same time, gender can said to be more significant for the lived experience of human beings than biological sex.

Yeah, i pretty much agree with that, and it might be a helpful contextualization.